Lecture  upon  the  controversy  bet 
Pennsylvania  and.  Virginia  about  the 
boundary  line. 

"\2ville  B.  Craig 


I 

• 

k 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


UPON    THE 


CONTROVERSY 


PENNSYLVANIA  AND  VIRGINIA, 


ABOUT    THE 


BOUNDARY    LINE: 


DELIVERED  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  BUILDING,  DECEMBER  §th,  1843, 


BY 

NEVILLE   B.    CRAIG, 

Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Western  Pennsylvania. 


PITTSBURGH: 

PRINTED    BY    A.    JAYNES — FRANKLIN    HEAD — OPPOSITE    POST-OFFICE. 

1843. 


-if**  •  x'  '     •'   ' 
,  •  -• 


4- 
1° 


Yi ir- NEW  YORK 


LECTURE. 


Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — 

OF  the  large  and  respectable  audience  now  assembled 
here,  there  is  perhaps  not  one  individual  who  has  not  read  the  history 
of  the  rise  and  progress  of  Rome,  of  the  increase  of  her  power  and 
of  the  gradual  extension  of  her  boundary,  so  as  first  to  embrace  the 
petty  domains  of  her  neighbors;  then  all  Italy,  and  finally  that  vast 
territory  which  extends  from  the  Western  Ocean  to  the  Euphrates, 
and  from  Mount  Atlas  to  the  Danube  and  the  mountains  of  Caledonia. 
The  history  of  that  haughty  nation  which  fought  and  conquered  two 
thousand  years  ago,  and  at  the  distance  of  many  thousand  miles  from 
us,  is  familiar  to  our  school-boys;  and  yet  it  is  probable  that  there  are 
now  present  some  intelligent  persons  who  are  not  aware  that  an  angry 
controversy  raged,  not  more  than  seventy  years  ago,  between  Penn- 
sylvanians  and  Virginians,  for  the  territory  in  and  around  this  city. 
A  still  larger  number,  no  doubt,  are  uninformed  as  to  the  origin  of 
that  controversy,  the  grounds  of  the  claims  of  the  different  parties, 
and  the  mode  and  the  terms  of  the  final  arrangement.  That  there 
should  be  a  want  of  general,  correct  information,  is  not,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances,  very  remarkable.  The  controversy  commenced  while 
these  States  were  colonies;  the  terms  of  the  compromise  were  agreed 
upon  during  our  struggle  for  independence,  and  attracted  less  attention 
among  the  more  exciting  events  of  the  war  of  the  Revolution.  Since 
that  time,  so  far  as  my  research  has  extended,  no  full  and  accurate 
notice  of  the  controversy  has  been  published.  Mr.  Barton,  in  his 
Memoirs  of  Rittenhouse,  has  several  references  to  the  matter;  and  the 
late  Judge  Brackenridge,  in  his  Law  Miscellanies,  has  a  short  chapter 
devoted  to  the  subject.  But  both  those  writers  have  permitted  some 
errors  to  find  places  in  their  publications.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that 
a  plain,  unvarnished  history  of  a  controversy  about  the  very  soil  upon 
which  we  stand,  would  not  be  les*s  interesting  to  the  audience  now 
assembled,  than  even  a  more  ornute  notice  of  some  ancient  or  far- 
distant  nation. 


I  proceed,  therefore,  to  give  a  very  plain,  though,  I  trust,  accurate 
account  of  that  dispute,  and  shall  labor  to  make  it  as  intelligible,  as 
the  fear  of  being  tedious  will  permit.  In  the  year  1606,  James  the 
First  granted  to  the  London  and  Plymouth  Companies  the  privilege 
of  making  two  settlements  on  any  part  of  the  coast  of  America* 
between  the  thirty-fourth  and  forty-fifth  degrees  of  North  latitude, 
the  whole  of  which  country  was  called  Virginia.  Under  this  grant, 
the  former  Company  made  a  settlement  at  Jamestown,  and  thus 
became  entitled,  under  the  terms  of  the  grant,  to  territory  one  hun- 
dred miles  square. 

Considering  this  extent  of  territory  too  contracted  for  their  pur- 
poses, the  Company  applied  for  a  further  enlargement  of  their  grant, 
and  in  1609,  an  additional  grant  was  made  to  them  in  the  following 
terms: — "All  those  lands,  countries  and  territories,  situate,  lying  and 
being  in  that  part  of  America  called  Virginia,  from  the  Point  of 
land  called  Point  Comfort,  all  along  the  sea-coast  to  the  Northward 
two  hundred  miles,  and  from  the  said  Point  Comfort,  to  the  South- 
ward, two  hundred  miles,  and  all  that  space  and  circuit  of  land 
lying  from  the  sea-coast  of  the  precinct  aforesaid,  up  into  the  land 
throughout,  from  sea  to  sea,  West  and  Nonh-West." 

In  1623,  a  Writ  of  Quo  Tf'arranto  was  issued  against  the  Com- 
pany from  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  which  was  decided  against 
it  the  next  year.  By  this  decision,  the  Company  was  dissolved, 
and  the  land  within  the  limits  of  the  grant,  ^  with  the  exception 
of  such  tracts  as  had  been  granted  to  settlers,  reverted  to  the  Crown. 
Against  this  decision  the  Company  seems  never  to  have  made  any 
objection. 

In  1632,  Charles  the  First  granted  to  Lord  Baltimore,  the  present 
territory  of  Maryland,  which  greatly  encroached  upon  the  bounds  of 
the  grant  to  the  London  Company;  yet  against  this  grant  neither 
that  Company  nor  the  Colonial  Legislature  made  any  opposition. 
This  is  only  material  in  this  place,  as  showing  the  submission  of 
those  interested,  and  as  proving  that  the  decision  on  the  fyto  If'ar- 
ranto  was  acquiesced  in  as  legal. 

In  168J(,  the  grant  was  made  to  William  Penn,  of  "All  that  tract 
or  part  of  land  in  America,  with  all  the  islands  therein  contained, 
as  the  same  is  bounded  on  the  East  by  Delaware  river,  from  twelve 
miles  Northward  of  New  Castletown,  unto  the  three  and  fortieth 
degree  of  Northern  latitude,  if  the  said  river  doth  extend  so  far  North- 
wards; but  if  the  said  river  shall  not  extend  so  far  Northwards,  then 


by  the  said  river  so  far  as  it  does  extend;  and  from  the  head  of  the 
said  river,  the  Eastern  bounds  are  to  be  determined  by  a  meridian 
line  to  be  drawn  from  the  head  of  said  river  unto  the  said  three  and 
fortieth  degree.  The  said  lands  to  extend  Westward  five  degrees 
in  longitude,  to  be  computed  from  the  said  Eastern  bounds;  and 
the  said  land  to  be  bounded  on  the  North  by  the  beginning  of  the 
three  and  fortieth  degree  of  Northern  latitude,  and  on  the  South  by 
a  circle  drawn  at  twelve  miles  distance  from  New  Castle,  North- 
ward and  Westward,  unto  the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree  of 
Northern  latitude,  and  then  by  a  straight  line  Westward  to  the  limits 
of  longitude  above  mentioned." 

In  this  description  of  the  territory  granted  to  Penn,  there  is  no 
vagueness  or  uncertainty,  except  in  one  particular,  and  that  as  to  the 
Western  boundary.  The  words  are,  "Said  lands  to  extend  West- 
ward Jive  degrees  in  longitude,  to  be  computed  from  the  said 
Eastern  bounds."  Now  as  the  Eastern  "  bounds"  is  the  Dela- 
ware river,  which  in  its  meandering  course  varies  its  longitude  more 
than  forty  miles,  the  questions  soon  occurred,  from  what  point  on 
the  Delaware  shall  the  five  degrees  of  longitude  be  computed?  shall 
the  Western  boundary  be  a  meridian,  or  shall  it  be  a  crooked  line 
corresponding  to  the  curves  of  the  Delaware,  and  distant  from  it  five 
degrees  of  longitude  at  every  corresponding  point?  These  and  other 
questions  would  naturally  occur,  in  interpreting  the  words  defining 
the  Western  boundaries  of  Pennsylvania. 

I  have  before  mentioned  that  the  territory  of  Virginia,  as  granted 
to  the  London  Company,  with  the  exception  of  land  actually  granted 
to  settlers,  had  reverted  to  the  Crown  by  the  judgment  on  the  Writ 
of  Quo  Warranto.  I  have  also  stated  that  in  1632,  forty-eight 
years  before  the  grant  was  made  to  Penn,  Maryland  was  granted 
to  Lord  Baltimore.  In  the  latter  grant,  the  Northern  boundary  is  a 
right-line  drawn  from  that  part  of  the  Delaware  Bay  which  lieth 
under  the  fortieth  degree  of  lEfSBypde,  due  West  to  the  meridian  of 
the  first  fountain  of  the  river  Potomac.  Here,  then,  is  an  inter- 
ference of  boundary  lines  between  Penn  and  Lord  Baltimore.  Penn 
had  a  grant  to  the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree  of  North  latitude; 
while  Baltimore  had  a  grant  to  pass  beyond  the  beginning  of  that 
degree,  and  to  extend  some  indefinite  distance  under  it.  In  1769, 
after  a  long  and  vexatious  controversy,  the  boundary  was  fixed  at 
latitude  39°  43'  42"  being  the  line  so  famous  in  late  clays,  as  Mason 
and  Dixon's  line.  But  although  the  prior  charter  to  Lord  Baltimore 


6 

prevailed  over  the  later  grant  to  Penn,  throughout  the  entire  length 
of  the  province  of  Maryland,  there  was  no  good  reason  why  the 
South  boundary  of  Pennsylvania,  West  of  Maryland,  should  not  con- 
form to  the  charter,  and  extend  South  to  latitude  thirty-nine  degrees, 
being  the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree.  The  grant  to  the  London 
Company  having  been  annulled,  and  the  territory  included  in  it  hav- 
ing reverted  to  the  Crown,  there  was  no  dispute  between  rival 
Grantees,  as  in  the  case  of  Maryland;  no  question  about  priority  of 
grants;  but  the  simple  point  to  be  settled  was  this, — does  the  charter 
to  Penn  include  the  territory  in  dispute? 

Having  thus  made  such  preliminary  remarks  as  were  necessary 
a  render  the  controversy  between  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  easily 
intelligible,  I  will  proceed  to  the  account  of  that  matter. 

In  1752,  the  Proprietors  of  Pennsylvania  understanding  that  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  was  about  to  erect  a  Fort  at  the  Forks  of  the 
Ohio,  now  Pittsburgh,  to  repel  the  incursions  of  the  French,  in- 
structed their  Governor,  Hamilton,  to  render  any  assistance  in  his 
power,  taking,  however,  an  acknowledgment  from  Virginia,  that  any 
settlement  made  should  not  be  construed  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
right  of  the  Penns.  Of  these  instructions,  Gov.  Hamilton  imme- 
diately gave  Gov.  Dinwiddie  notice.  Nearly  two  years  later,  in 
1754,  Gov.  Dinwiddie  being  prepared  to  commence  building  the 
Fort  at  the  Forks,  issued  a  proclamation  promising  to  lay  out  two 
hundred  thousand  acres  of  land,  in  and  near  this  place,  to  be  divided 
among  those  who  would  enlist  in  the  service  against  the  French. 
Upon  receiving  a  copy  of  this  proclamation,  Gov.  Hamilton,  on  the 
13th  of  March,  1754,  wrote  to  Gov.  Dinwiddie,  reminding  him  of 
his  former  intimation  respecting  the  lands,  and  requesting  such  an 
acknowledgment  as  the  Proprietaries  had  before  suggested. 

On  the  21st  of  March,  1754,  Gov.  Dinwiddie  replied:  in  his  letter 
he  said,  "I  am  much  misled  by  our  Surveyors,  if  the  Forks  of  the 
Monongahela  be  within  the  liinitsN>of  your  Proprietaries'  grant.  I 
have  for  some  time  written  home,  to  have  the  line  run, — to  have  the 
boundaries  properly  known,  &c.  In  the  mean  time,  that  no  hinder- 
ance  may  be  given  to  our  intended  expedition,  it  is  highly  reasonable, 
if  these  lands  are  in  your  Proprietor's  grant,  that  the  settlers  should 
pay  the  quit-rent  to  Mr.  Penn,  and  not  to  His  Majesty.  And  there- 
fore, as  far  as  in  my  power  lies,  I  agree  thereto,  after  the  time  granted 
by  my  proclamation,  to  be  clear  of  quit-rent,  ceases." 

These  proceedings  (1752,  '54)  were  the  first  acts  by  the  provincial 


government  of  Virginia,  in  which  any  jurisdiction  was  claimed  over 
the  Western  Territory;  and,  as  is  above  stated,  they  were  promptly 
met  by  Gov.  Hamilton;  so  that  there  was  not  the  slightest  shadow  of 
ground  for  the  allegation  of  acquiescence,  as  subsequently  made  by 
Lord  Dunmore. 

Within  a  month  after  Mr.  Dinwiddie's  last  letter  to  Gov.  Hamilton 
was  written,  Monsieur  Contrecoaur,  at  the  head  of  a  large  number  of 
French  and  Indians,  descended  the  Allegheny  river  from  Fort  Ve- 
nango, — captured  Ensign  Wrard,  with  his  little  band  of  forty  men, — 
and  took  formal  possession  of  the  country  around  the  head  of  the 
OHIO.  Subsequently,  followed  Washington's  first  campaign,  from 
Fort  Cumberland  towards  the  Monongahela;  and  finally,  his  surren- 
der to  the  French  at  Fort  Necessity  on  the  fourth  day  of  July,  1754. 
From  that  date  the  French  remained  in  possession  of  the  country 
around  the  head  of  the  Ohio;  and  all  settlements,  by  English  or 
Americans,  were  prevented,  until  Gen.  Forbes,  in  November,  1758, 
drove  the  enemy  from  Fort  Duquesne,  and  took  possession  of  the 
country.  From  that  time  until  1774,  no  difficulty  occurred  between 
Virginia  and  Pennsylvania,  in  relation  to  the  boundary.  The  lands 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Pittsburgh  were  surveyed  for  the  Proprie- 
taries early  in  1769;  magistrates  were  appointed  in  the  beginning  of 
1771,  and  entered  upon,  and  continued  in  the  exercise  of  their  duties 
for  some  time,  without  molestation.  As  the  difficulties,  h&wever,  be- 
tween the  mother  country  and  the  colonies  increased,  the  British  gov- 
ernment deemed  it  advisable  to  order  the  abandonment  of  Fort  Pitt, 
and  the  withdrawal  of  the  troops  from  this  place.  The  Fort  being 
thus  abandoned,  one  John  Connolly,  a  man  of  much  energy  and  tal- 
ent, but  without  principle,  came  here  from  Virginia,  about  the  end  of 
the  year  1773  or  beginning  of  '74,  having  authority  from  Lord  Dun- 
more,  Governor  of  that  State,  took  possession  of  the  Fort,  calling  it 
Fort  Dunmore;  and  as  Captain  Commandant  of  the  Militia,  issued 
his  proclamation,  calling  on  the  people  to  meet  him,  as  a  Militia,  on 
the  25th  January,  1774.  For  so  doing,  Arthur  St.  Clair,  one  of  the 
magistrates  of  Westmoreland  county,  Pennsylvania,  issued  a  warrant 
against  him,  and  had  him  committed  to  the  jail  at  Hanna's  town,  the 
seat  of  Justice  of  Westmoreland  county,  which  embraced  this  place ; 
from  which,  however,  he  was  soon  released,  by  entering  bail  for  his 
appearance  at  Court. 

Information  of  these  transactions  was  transmitted  to  the  Governor, 
John  Penn,  by  express,  who,  on  the  31st  of  January,  1774,  wrote  a 


8 

letter  to  Lord  Dun  more,  urging  him  to  refrain  from  appointing  officers 
at  Pittsburgh,  and  suffer  matters  to  remain  as  they  were,  until  a  tempo- 
rary Boundary-line  could  be  run  by  Commissioners  to  be  appointed 
by  both  governments.  This  letter  has  never,  to  my  knowledge,  ap- 
peared in  print;  the  copy  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  having  been  pro- 
cured by  me  from  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth. 
The  following  portion  of  it  will  be  found  interesting,  as  showing  the 
measures  adopted  by  Mr.  John  Penn,  to  ascertain  whether  Pittsburgh 
was  within  the  chartered  limits  of  Pennsylvania. 

"The  Western  Extent  of  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  by  the 
Royal  Grant,  is  five  degrees  of  Longitude  from  the  River  Delaware, 
which  is  its  Eastern  boundary.  In  the  year  1768,  an  East  and  West 
line  was  run  from  Delaware,  at  the  mouth  of  Christiana  Creek,  to  the 
crossing  of  Dunkard  Creek,  a  branch  of  the  Monongahela,  by  Messrs. 
Dixon  and  Mason,  two  Surveyors  of  distinction,  who  were  sent  over 
from  England  to  run  the  Division-Line  between  Maryland  and  Penn- 
sylvania. These  Artists  fixed  the  Latitude  and  Extent  of  that  Line 
with  the  utmost  exactness  and  precision, — to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Commissioners  on  both  sides. 

"  From  the  233d  Mile-stone  on  this  Line,  a  North  Line  hath  since 
been  carefully  run  and  measured  to  the  Ohio:  and  from  thence  up  to 
Fort  Pitt,  the  several  courses  of  the  river  have  been  taken  with  all 
possible  care.  From  the  line  of  Dixon  and  Mason,  to  a  known  point 
in  the  South  line  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  the  true  course  and  dis- 
tance hath  been  discovered  by  actual  survey,  as  also  from  the  point 
aforesaid  to  that  part  of  the  river  Delaware  which  is  in  the  same  lati- 
tude as  Fort  Pitt;  and  from  these  several  data,  the  most  exact  calcu- 
lations have  been  made  by  Dr.  Smith,  Provost  of  our  College, — Mr. 
Rittenhouse,  and  our  Surveyor  General — in  order  to  ascertain  the  dif- 
ference of  longitude  between  Delaware  and  Pittsburgh;  who  all  agree, 
that  the  latter  is  near  six  miles  Eastward  of  the  Western  extent 
of  the  Province. 

"The  better  to  illustrate  ihis  matter,  and  enable  your  Lordship  to 
form  a  judgment  of  the  accuracy  with  which  the  work  has  been  done 
and  the  calculations  made,  I  have  enclosed  a  map  or  draught  of  the 
several  lines  above  mentioned,  with  explanatory  notes,  as  delivered 
by  them  to  me." 

The  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  calculations  of  Messrs.  Ritten- 
house, Smith  and  Lukens,  (hat  Pittsburgh  was  "  near  six  miles 


9 

within"  the  boundary  claimed  by  John  Penn,  proves  to  be  remarka- 
bly accurate. 

Indeed,  so  far  as  I  can  judge  by  the  best  Maps  of  the  State,  I 
presume  Penn's  curved  line,  parallel  to  the  Delaware,  would  cross 
the  Ohio  river  between  five  and  six  miles  below  this  city. 

How  strongly  does  this  accuracy  of  John  Penn  contrast  with  the 
vague,  rash  and  unfounded  claim  set  up  by  Lord  Dunmore,  in  his 
correspondence  with  Messrs.  Tilghmari  and  Allen,  as  will  be  imme- 
diately related. 

The  Map  referred  to  in  John  Penn's  letter,  could  not  be  found 
at  Harrisburgh,  though  diligent  search  was  made,  and  though  I  have 
some  time  since  applied  to  a  friend  at  Richmond,  I  have  not  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  a  copy. 

To  the  letter  of  John  Penn,  Lord  Dunmore  replied  on  the  3d  of 
March,  1774:  he  coniemfed  that  in  1753,  '54,  Pennsylvania  had  ad- 
mitted the  better  title  of  Virginia  to  the  country  in  dispute;  declared 
that  he  could  not  defer  the  appointment  of  such  other  officers  as 
may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  good  government  of  this  section 
of  country,  and  insisted  that  Mr.  St.  Clair  should  be  punished  by 
dismissal  from  office,  unless  he  could  prevail  upon  Connolly  to 
apply  for  his  pardon. 

Gov.  Penn,  in  his  reply,  dated  March  31st,  contended  that  the  Pro- 
prietary of  Pennsylvania  had  not  admitted  the  claim  of  Virginia  to  be 
good,  but  had  expressly  denied  it.  He  also  thus  states  the  claim  of 
the  Proprietaries  of  Pennsylvania: — "The  Proprietaries  of  Pennsyl- 
vania do  claim,  as  part  of  their  province,  all  the  lands  lying  West  of  a 
South  line  to  be  drawn  from  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  as  it  is  com- 
monly called,  at  the  Western-most  part  of  the  province  of  Maryland, 
to  the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree  of  North  latitude,  to  the 
extent  of  five  degrees  of  longitude  from  the  Delaware." 

The  Governor  also  declined  to  remove  Mr.  St.  Clair,  whom  he 
pronounced  to  be  an  honest,  worthy  man,  who  had  served  His 
Majesty  in  the  Regulars,  with  reputation.  It  may  be  as  well  to 
mention  here,  that  this  Mr.  St.  Clair  is  the  same  person  who  has 
long  since  been  well  known  as  Gen.  St.  Clair,  and  who  was  almost 
equally  distinguished  by  his  talents,  social  virtues,  services  and  hard 
fortune. 

While  this  correspondence  was  passing  between  Mr.  Penn  and 
Lord  Dunmore,  Connolly  had  gone  to  Staunton,  and  was  sworn 


10 

in  as  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  of  Augusta  county,  Virginia,  in  which, 
it  was  alleged,  the  country  around  Pittsburgh  was  embraced.     To- 
wards the  latter  part  of  March,  he  returned  to  this  place,  with  both 
civil  and  military  authority,  to  put  the  laws  of  Virginia  in  force. 
About  the  fifth  of  April,  the  Court  assembled  at  Hanna's  town,  the 
seat  of  Justice  for  Westmoreland  county,  Pennsylvania.     Soon  after, 
Connolly,  with  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  men,  all  armed  and  with 
colors  flying,  appeared  there;  placed  sentinels  at  the  door  of  the 
Court-house,  who  refused  to  admit  the  magistrates,  unless  with  the 
consent  of  their  commander.     A  meeting  then  took  place  between 
Connolly  and  the  magistrates,  in  which  the  former  stated  that  he  had 
come  there  in  fulfilment  of  his  promise  to  the  Sheriff;  but  denied 
the  authority  of  the  Court,  and  declared  that  the  magistrates  had  no 
right  to  hold  a  Court.     He  added,  however,  that  to  prevent  confu- 
sion, he  agreed  that  the  magistrates  might  act  as  a  Court  in  all 
matters  which  might  be  submitted  to  them  by  the  acquiescence  of 
the  people,  until  he  should  receive  instructions  to  the  contrary.     To 
this  the  magistrates  replied,  that  their  authority  rested  on  the  legis- 
lative authority  of  Pennsylvania;  that  it  had  been  regularly  exercised; 
that  they  would  continue  to  exercise  it  in  the  same  regular  manner, 
and  that  they  would  do  all  in  their  power  to  preserve  the  public 
tranquillity.     They  added,  in  conclusion,  an  assurance  that  the  pro- 
vince of  Pennsylvania  would   use  every  exertion  to  accommodate 
differences,  by  fixing  a  temporary  boundary  until  the  true  one  could 
be  ascertained. 

On  the  eighth  of  April,  the  Justices,  ^Eneas  Mackay,  Devereux 
Smith,  and  Andrew  M'Farlane,  returned  from  the  Court  to  Pitts- 
burgh, where  they  resided,  and  on  the  next  day  they  were  arrested 
by  Connolly's  Sheriff,  and  on  refusing  to  give  bail,  were  sent  off 
under  guard  to  Staunton,  in  Virginia.  After  traveling  one  day  to- 
gether, Mr.  Mackay  got  permission  to  go  by  the  way  of  Williams- 
burgh  to  see  Lord  Dunmore;  and  after  some  conversation  with  him, 
his  Lordship  wrote  to  the  Sheriff  requesting  him  to  permit  the 
prisoners  to  return  home,  and  saying,  '•!  will  be  answerable  for  their 
appearance,  in  case  it  be  required."  Mackay  immediately  proceeded 
to  Staunton;  and  in  a  letter  dated  at  that  place,  on  the  fifth  of  May, 
he  informed  Gov.  Penn  that  he  and  his  fellow-prisoners  were  to  set 
out  on  their  homeward  journey,  forthwith.  On  the  19th  day  of 
April,  intelligence  of  the  arrest  of  the  Justices  reached  the  Governor; 


11 

and  on  the  21st,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Council,  it  was  determined  to 
send  two  Commissioners  to  Virginia,  to  represent  to  the  government 
there,  the  ill  consequences  which  may  ensue  if  an  immediate  stop  be 
not  put  to  the  disorders  which  then  existed  in  the  West,  and  to  con- 
sult upon  the  most  proper  means  for  establishing  peace  and  good 
order  in  that  quarter. 

James  Tilghman  and  Andrew  Allen  were  appointed,  with  instruc- 
tions, first,  to  request  the  Governor  of  Virginia  to  unite  with  the 
Proprietaries  of  Pennsylvania  to  petition  His  Majesty  in  Council,  to 
appoint  Commissioners  to  run  the  boundary-line;  the  expense  to  be 
equally  borne  by  the  two  Colonies;  second,  to  use  every  exertion 
to  induce  the  Governor  to  agree  to  some  temporary  line;  but  in  no 
event  to  assent  to  any  line  which  would  give  Virginia  jurisdiction  of 
the  country  on  the  East  side  of  the  Monongahela  river. 

The  Commissioners  arrived  at  Williamsburgh  on  the  19th  of  May, 
and  on  the  21st  had  an  oral  conference  with  the  Governor;  in  which 
he  expressed  his  willingness  to  join  in  an  application  to  the  King,  to 
appoint  Commissioners  to  settle  the  boundary;  but  also  declared,  that 
Virginia  would  defray  no  part  of  the  expense.  As  to  the  temporary 
line,  he  desired  the  Commissioners  to  make  their  propositions  in 
writing. 

In  compliance  with  this  request,  they,  on  the  23d,  addressed  him  a 
letter  containing  the  following  proposition: — "That  a  survey  be  taken 
by  Surveyors,  to  be  appointed  by  the  two  Governments,  with  as 
much  accuracy  as  may  serve  the  present  purpose,  of  the  courses  of 
the  Delatvare,  from  the  mouth  of  Christiana  creek,  or  near  it,  where 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  intersects  the  Delaware,  to  that  part  of  said 
river  which  lies  in  the  latitude  of  Fort  Pitt,  and  as  much  farther  as 
may  be  needful  for  the  present  purpose.  That  the  line  of  Mason  and 
Dixon  be  extended  to  the  distance  of  five  degrees  of  longitude  from 
the  Delaware;  and  that  from  the  end  of  said  five  degrees,  a  line  or 
lines,  corresponding  to  the  courses  of  the  Delaware,  be  run  to  the 
river  Ohio,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  at  the  distance  of  five  degrees  from 
said  river  in  every  part."  And  that  the  extension  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line,  and  the  line  or  lines  corresponding  to  the  courses  of  the 
Delaware,  be  taken  as  the  line  of  jurisdiction,  until  the  boundary  can 
be  run  and  settled  by  Royal  authority. 

Lord  Dunmore,  in  his  reply,  dated  24th  May,  contended  that  the 
Western  boundary  could  not  be  of  "such  an  inconvenient  and  difficult 


12 

to  be  ascertained  shape,"  as  it  would  be  if  made  to  correspond  to  the 
courses  of  the  Delaware.  He  thought  that  it  should  be  a  meridian 
line,  at  the  distance  of  five  degrees  from  the  Delaware,  in  the  forty- 
second  degree  of  latitude. 

He  then,  after  some  arguments  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  recite, 
remarked,  that  unless  the  Commissioners  could  propose  some  plan 
that  favored  as  much  the  sentiments  of  the  government  of  Virginia  as 
of  Pennsylvania,  he  saw  that  no  accommodation  could  be  entered  into 
previous  to  the  King's  decision.  The  Commissioners,  in  their  reply 
of  the  26th,  say,  that  for  the  purpose  of  producing  harmony  and 
peace,  "we  shall  be  willing  to  recede  from  our  Charter  bounds,  so  far 
as  to  make  the  river  Monongahela,  from  the  line  of  Mason  and  Dix- 
on,  the  Western  boundary  of  jurisdiction,  which  would  at  once  settle 
our  present  dispute,  without  the  great  trouble  and  expense  of  running 
lines,  or  the  inconvenience  of  keeping  the  jurisdiction  in  suspense." 

On  the  same  day,  Lord  Dunmore  replied  in  a  long  letter,  manifes- 
ting throughout  a  most  uncourteous  and  rude  spirit.  The  following 
are  the  most  material  passages,  showing,  as  they  do,  that  further  cor- 
respondence with  him  was  utterly  useless: — 

"  And  what  were  your  proposals  to  reconcile  these  difficulties? 
Why,  in  your  first,  you  propose  that  every  thing  shall  be  given  up  to 
Pennsylvania;  and  in  your  second,  that  Virginia  shall  be  content, 
without  having  any  thing  given  up  to  it:  at  least,  I  can  find  nothing 
given  up  by  your  proposal  of  the  Monongahela,  &c.  What  else  then 
can  I  conclude,  but  that  no  reed  intention  is  meant  to  avoid  the  great 
and  reciprocal  inconveniences  of  a  doubtful  boundary,"  &o.  Further 
on  he  says, — "Your  resolution,  with  respect  to  Fort  Pitt,  (the  juris- 
diction over  ivhich  place,  I  must  tell  you,  at  all  events,  will  not  be 
relinquished  by  this  Government,  without  His  Majesty's  orders,) 
puts  an  entire  stop  to  further  treaty." 

On  the  27th,  the  Commissioners,  in  a  brief  reply,  state,  that  the 
determination  of  his  Lordship  not  to  relinquish  Fort  Pitt,  puts  a  pe- 
riod to  the  treaty. 

After  a  careful  perusal  of  this  correspondence,  and  an  attentive  con- 
sideration of  Lord  Dunmore's  conduct  in  1774  and  1775,  the  conclu- 
sion is  forced  upon  the  mind,  that  he  was  a  very  weak  and  arbitrary 
man,  or  else  that  the  suspicion,  then  entertained,  that  he  wished  to 
promote  ill  will  and  hostility  between  the  Pennsylvanians  and  Vir- 
ginians, as  well  as  between  the  Indians  and  whites,  was  well  founded. 


13 

During  the  whole  of  this  correspondence,  this  place  was  called  Fort 
Pitt;  the  new  name  of  Fort  Dunmore  was  never  mentioned.  The 
Commissioners,  in  their  first  letter,  gave  it  the  old  name,  and  Dun- 
more  did  the  same  in  his  letters  to  them;  although  he  had  before 
recognized  the  new  name  bestowed  by  Connolly. 

This  negotiation  having  thus  failed,  Connolly  continued  to  domi' 
neer  with  a  high-hand  at  Fort  Pitt.  In  a  letter  from  JEneas  Mackay 
to  Governor  Penn,  dated  June  14th,  1774,  we  find  the  following 
strong  and  emphatic  language: — "The  deplorable  state  of  affairs  in 
this  part  of  your  government,  is  truly  distressing.  We  are  robbed, 
insulted  and  dragooned  by  Connolly  and  his  militia,  in  this  place  and 
its  environs." 

To  form  an  adequate  conception  of  the  condition  of  the  inhabitants 
in  this  place,  at  that  time,  we  must  take  into  view,  not  only  the  op- 
pressive conduct  of  Connolly,  but  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  war  of 
the  Revolution  was  rapidly  approaching,  and  that  hostilities  between 
the  Indians  and  Virginians,  were  actually  raging  at  that  time.  The 
Indians,  it  is  true,  were  understood  to  say  that  they  would  not  touch 
the  Pennsylvanians;  but  still  they  must  have  felt  much  of  the  em- 
barrassments arising  out  of  the  Indian  war.  So  great  was  the  anxiety 
and  distress  of  the  adherents  of  the  Proprietary,  that  they  at  one  time 
thought  seriously  of  leaving  this  place,  and  removing  to  Kittanning, 
which  lay  in  another  manor.  Another  project  was,  to  raise  a  stockade 
around  the  town  of  Pittsburgh,  being  that  part  of  our  city  which  lies 
between  Water  and  Second  Streets,  and  Market  and  Ferry  streets. 
Neither  project  was  carried  into  execution,  and  I  merely  refer  to 
them  as  signs  of  the  times,  and  as  evidences  of  the  state  of  feeling 
then  prevailing  here. 

On  the  8th  of  September,  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth,  one  of  the  Secre- 
taries of  State,  wrote  a  letter  to  Lord  Dunmore,  containing  some  items 
of  intelligence,  in  relation  to  this  place,  which  are  of  interest  as  form- 
ing a  part  of  the  history  of  Fort  Pitt,  and  of  the  controversy.  After 
stating  that  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  had  attributed  the  hostility 
of  the  Indians,  to  the  unprovoked  attacks  upon  them  by  the  Virgin- 
ians, and  had  also  alleged  that  a  party  of  Virginians  had  attacked  and 
wounded  some  Indians,  who,  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  had  escorted 
some  traders  to  Pittsburgh,  he  proceeds  to  say,— "My  intelligence, 
through  a  variety  of  other  channels,  confirms  these  facts."  He  fur- 
ther adds,  that  he  is  informed,  that  "one  Connolly,  using  your  Lord- 


ship's  name,  and  pleading  your  authority,  lias  presumed  to  re-estab- 
lish the  Fort  at  Pittsburgh,  which  had  been  demolished  by  the  King's 
express  order."  He  then  concludes  by  stating,  that  he  gives  this  in- 
formation so  that  "the  facts  asserted,  if  not  true,  may  be  contradicted 
by  his  Lordship's  authority;  but  if  true,  which  he  cannot  suppose, 
such  steps  may  be  taken  as  the  King's  dignity  and  justice  shall  dic- 
tate." 

The  publication  of  this  letter  should  have  exonerated   the  British 

ministry  from  all  suspicion  of  countenancing  the  scheme  attributed 
to  Dunmore  or  Connolly,  of  exciting  ill  blood  and  war  between  the 
Indians  and  whites. 

On  the  seventeenth  of  September,  Lord  Dunmore  being  at  this 
place  preparing  for  his  expedition  against  the  Indians,  issued  a  pro- 
clamation, dated  at  Fort  Dunmore,  reciting  that,  "Whereas,  the 
ancient  claim  laid  to  this  country  by  the  Colony  of  Virginia,  founded 
upon  reason,  upon  pre-occupancy,  and  the  general  acquiescence  of 
all  persons,  together  with  the  instructions  I  have  lately  received,  to 
take  this  country  under  my  administration;  and  the  evident  injustice 
manifestly  offered  to  His  Majesty,  by  the  immediate  strides  taken  by 
the  Proprietors  of  Pennsylvania,  in  prosecution  of  their  wild  claim, 
demand  an  immediate  remedy."  He  then  calls  on  all  His  Majesty's 
subjects  West  of  Laurel  Hill,  to  pay  due  respect  to  that  procla- 
mation, prohibiting  the  execution  of  any  act  of  authority  on  behalf 
of  the  province  of  Pennsylvania,  at  their  peril;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
that  due  regard  and  entire  obedience  be  paid  to  the  laws  of  His 
Majesty's  Colony  of  Virginia,  &c. 

On  the  twelfth  of  October,  Gov.  Penn  issued  another  proclama- 
tion, which  is  of  too  great  length  to  be  inserted  here.  In  reply, 
however,  to  that  portion  of  Lord  Dunmore's  proclamation,  which 
speaks  of  the  "general  acquiescence  of  all  persons"  in  the  claim  of 
Virginia,  he  mentions  that,  "in  an  act  passed  at  the  very  last  session 
of  Parliament,  for  the  government  of  Quebec,  the  Western  extent 
of  the  Charter  to  Penn  is  fully  recognized;  said  province  being  de- 
scribed as  being  bounded  by  the  Northern  and  Western  bounds  of 
Pennsylvania.  Wherefore  there  is  reason  to  infer,  that  any  instruc- 
tions to  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  to  take  that  country  under  his 
administration,  must  be  founded  on  some  misrepresentation  respect- 
ing the  Western  extent  of  Pennsylvania."  It  concludes  by  calling 
on  all  persons  West  of  Laurel  Hill,  to  retain  the  settlements  made 


15 

under  that  province,  and  to  pay  due  obedience  to  the  laws  of  that 
province;  and  by  charging  all  magistrates  to  proceed  as  usual  in  the 
administration  of  justice. 

On  Nov.  12th,  Connolly  sent  out  a  warrant  for  a  Mr.  Scott  to  ap- 
pear and  answer  for  a  number  of  offences,  charged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted while  acting  under  authority  from  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Scott  re- 
fused to  pay  any  attention  to  this  warrant;  and  on  the  same  day  a  num- 
ber of  armed  men  came  to  his  house  and  carried  him  to  Fort  Burd, 
now  Brownsville,  where  he  was  required  either  to  enter  into  recog- 
nizance with  two  sureties,  to  appear  at  the  next  Court,  to  be  held  at 
Pittsburgh  for  the  county  of  Augusta,  Dec.  20th,  1774,  or  at  any  future 
day  when  the  Court  should  be  held  there;  or  else  be  committed  to 
prison.  Mr.  Scott  gave  the  required  bail;  but  I  have  not  been  able 
to  ascertain  the  final  disposition  of  his  case;  though,  I  presume,  the 
prosecution  was  abandoned  under  the  subsequent  recommendation 
of  the  Delegates  in  Congress,  from  these  two  States. 

On  the  twenty-fourth  of  November,  a  party  of  armed  men  under 
command  of  Connolly,  went  to  Hanna's  town,  and  released  two 
prisoners  confined  in  the  jail  under  execution. 

In  January,  1775,  information  being  given  to  the  Executive  Coun- 
cil, that  William  Crawford,  the  President  Judge  of  Westmoreland 
County,  had  joined  the  Virginians  in  opposing  the  jurisdiction  of 
Pennsylvania;  the  Council  advised  the  Governor  to  supersede  him 
in  his  oifice  as  Judge;  which  was  done  forthwith. 

On  the  7th  of  February,  another  party  of  armed  men  went  to  Han^ 
na's  town,  broke  open  the  jail,  and  released  three  prisoners.  Benja- 
min Harrison,  a  son-in-law  of  Crawford,  commanded  this  party, 
Connolly  having,  some  days  before,  started  for  Williamsburg.  In 
April  and  May,  three  of  the  Pennsylvania  magistrates  were  arrested 
and  held  in  custody  for  performing  the  duties  of  their  offices. 

The  power  of  Lord  Dunmore  and  his  agent,  Connolly,  was,  how- 
ever, fast  drawing  to  a  close.  On  the  8th  of  June,  the  former  aban- 
doned his  palace  in  Williamsburg,  and  took  refuge  on  board  the 
Fowcy  man-of-war,  where  soon  after  he  was  joined  by  Connolly, 
who  was  then  busily  engaged  in  planning  an  attack  upon  the  West- 
ern frontier. 

The  continual  collisions  and  disorder  at  Pittsburgh  could  not  fail  to 
attract  the  attention  of  all  the  patriotic,  citizens  of  the  two  States,  and 
on  the  25th  of  July,  1775,  the  Delegates  in  Congress,  including 


16 

among  others,  Thomas  Jefferson,  Patrick  Henry,  and  Benjamin 
Franklin,  united  in  a  circular,  urging  the  people  in  the  disputed  re- 
gion, to  mutual  forbearance.  In  that  circular  was  the  following  lan- 
guage:— "We  recommend  it  to  you,  that  all  bodies  of  armed  men, 
kept  up  by  either  party,  be  dismissed:  and  that  all  those  on  either 
side,  who  are  in  confinement,  or  on  bail,  for  taking  part  in  the  contest, 
be  discharged." 

There  were  no  armed  men  maintained  by  the  Pennsylvanians;  so 
that  the  expression  about  "either  party,"  was  probably  only  used  to 
avoid  the  appearance  of  invidiousness;  and  Connolly  and  his  men  had 
taken  effectual  measures  for  the  release  of  Virginians  from  confine- 
ment. 

On  the  7th  of  August,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
Virginia  Provincial  Convention,  which  had  assembled  at  \Villiams- 
burg,  on  the  first  of  that  month: — 

"Resolved,  That  Captain  John  Neville  be  directed  to  march  with 
his  company  of  one  hundred  men,  and  take  possession  of  Fort  Pitt, 
and  that  said  company  be  in  the  pay  of  the  Colony  from  the  time 
of  their  marching." 

The  arrival  of  Captain  Neville  at  Fort  Pitt  seems  to  have  been  en- 
tirely unexpected  to  the  Pennsylvanians,  and  to  have  created  consid- 
erable excitement.  Commissioners  appointed  by  Congress,  were 
then  here  to  hold  a  treaty  with  the  Indians,  and  Mr.  St.  Clair,  in  a 
letter  to  John  Penn,  dated  17th  September,  has  the  following  re- 
marks:— "The  treaty  is  not  yet  opened,  as  the  Indians  are  not  yet 
come  in;  but  there  are  accounts  of  their  being  on  the  way,  and  well 
disposed.  We  have,  however,  been  surprised  by  a  manoeuvre  of  the 
people  of  Virginia,  that  may  have  a  tendency  to  alter  their  disposition. 

"  About  one  hundred  armed  men  marched  from  Winchester,  and 
took  possession  of  the  Fort  on  the  llth  instant,  which  has  so  much 
disturbed  the  Delegates  from  the  Congress,  that  they  have  thoughts 
of  moving  some  place  else  to  hold  the  treaty. 

"This  step  has  already,  as  might  be  expected,  served  to  exasperate 
the  dispute  between  the  inhabitants  of  the  country,  and  entirely  des- 
troyed the  prospect  of  a  cessation  of  our  grievances,  from  the  salutary 
and  conciliating  advice  of  the  Delegates  in  their  circular  letter." 

There  is,  perhaps,  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  conduct  of  the 
Virginia  Convention,  in  ordering  Captain  Neville  to  Fort  Pitt,  with 
the  recommendation  of  the  Virginia  and  Penn?vlvania  Delegates  in 


17 

Congress,  that  "all  bodies  of  armed  men  in  pay,  of  either  party," 
should  be  discharged.  No  doubt,  however,  this  only  referred  to  bo- 
dies of  armed  men,  kept  up  by  the  Virginians  or  Pennsylvanians  in 
the  disputed  region.  Mr.  St.  Clair  seems  always  to  have  been  very 
watchful  of  the  interests  of  Pennsylvania  during  the  controversy;  and 
no  doubt,  the  surprise  expressed  by  him  was  unaffected;  and  yet  there 
were  strong  reasons  why  Fort  Pitt  should  be  promptly  occupied  by 
troops  in  the  confidence  of  the  Whigs  of  the  Revolution.  The  war 
for  independence  had  commenced  by  the  actions  at  Lexington  and 
Bunker  Hill;  and  Connolly,  a  bold,  able  and  enterprising  man,  was 
busy  arranging  some  scheme  of  operations,  in  which  Fort  Pitt  would 
be  an  important  and  controlling  position.  It  would  seem,  therefore, 
to  have  been  nothing  more  than  an  act  of  ordinary  prudence  and  fore- 
sight to  send  here  some  officer,  in  whose  firmness,  fidelity  and  dis- 
cretion, implicit  confidence  could  be  placed. 

Captain  Neville  was  then  about  forty-three  or  forty-four,  about  the 
same  age  as  Washington,  of  whom  he  was  an  early  acquaintance, 
and  with  whom  he  had  served  twenty  years  previous,  in  Braddock's 
expedition  and  defeat.  He  had,  in  the  preceding  year,  been  elected 
a  Delegate  to  the  Provincial  Convention,  which  appointed  Peyton 
Randolph,  George  Washington  and  others,  Delegates  to  the  first  Con- 
tinental Congress,  but  was  prevented  from  attending  by  sickness. 

He  had  some  time  previous  become  an  extensive  land-holder  in  the 
vicinity  of  Fort  Pitt,  and  was,  of  course,  interested  in  promoting  har- 
mony and  good  feelings  in  the  region  to  which  he  was  just  bringing 
his  family. 

He  was  a  man  of  very  frank  and  hearty  address,  of  sound  judg- 
ment, of  much  firmness  and  decision  of  character,  and  probably,  in  all 
respects,  as  well  suited  to  the  emergency  for  which  he  was  selected, 
as  any  individual  who  could  have  been  named,  and  who  would  have 
undertaken  the  duty. 

That  he  acted  with  great  prudence  and  impartiality,  may  be  infer- 
red from  the  fact,  that  after  the  controversy,  he,  for  some  time,  repre- 
sented the  disputed  region  in  the  Legislature  of  this  State.  Indeed, 
in  several  accounts  of  the  Western  Insurrection,  in  which  he  was  a 
prominent  actor,  it  is  stated  that  he  was  very  popular  up  to  that  time, 
but  had  then  become  unpopular,  because  he  had  voted  in  the  Penn- 
sylvania Legislature  against  a  tax  on  whiskey,  and  afterwards  accep- 
ted an  office  for  the  collection  of  a  similar  tax  under  the  General  Gov- 


18 

ernment.  Truly  this  was  going  far  for  a  reason  for  unpopularity, 
when  a  very  plain  and  obvious  one  was  so  near  at  hand.  In  an  insur- 
rection he  adhered  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  while  a  very  large  majority 
of  the  population  were  in  open  rebellion.  Even  in  our  party  con- 
tests, it  rarely  or  never  happens  that  any  man  is  popular  in  the  oppo- 
site party;  surely  then,  it  would  have  been  strange,  had  John  Neville 
preserved  his  popularity  with  those  who  sought  his  life  and  destroyed 
his  property. 

As  to  his  conduct  in  accepting  the  office,  there  might  be  very  sub- 
stantial reasons  for  voting  against  a  tax  on  whiskey  in  the  Legisla- 
ture, which  might  have  no  weight  in  Congress.  Besides,  a  Repre- 
sentative might  vote  against  a  bill  even  in  Congress,  and  yet,  with 
perfect  propriety,  assist  in  enforcing  it  when  it  had  become  a  law;  es- 
pecially where  there  was  no  suspicion  of  unconstitutionality,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  excise  on  whiskey. 

The  result  proved  that  Mr.  St.  Glair's  fears  were  groundless.  The 
Treaty  with  the  Indians  was  not  interrupted,  and  no  disturbance  oc- 
curred during  Captain  Neville's  stay  here;  which,  however,  was  not 
of  long  duration.  After  remaining  here  about  three  months,  he  was 
promoted  and  ordered  to  join  his  regiment,  with  which  he  served  un- 
til May,  1780,  when  he  became  a  prisoner  of  war,  along  with  Lin- 
coln's army,  at  the  surrender  of  Charleston. 

I  trust  this  passing  notice  of  a  near  relative,  whom  I  well  knew, 
whom  even  in  childhood  I  loved,  and  to  whose  cheerful  conversation 
and  well-told  adventures,  I  have  often  eagerly  listened,  will  be  for- 
given. As  an  additional  plea  for  indulgence,  I  will  remark  that  Cap- 
tain Neville  was  content  to  serve  his  country  openly  and  manfully, 
and  never  deemed  it  necessary  to  write  a  book  to  relate  his  services, 
explain  his  conduct,  or  define  his  position. 

On  the  23d  day  of  November,  1775,  Connolly,  and  two  of  his  as- 
sociates, were  arrested  at  Fredericktown,  Maryland.  His  connection 
with  the  British  General,  Gage,  and  Lord  Dunmore,  and  the  whole  of 
his  plans  for  invading  the  Western  frontier  with  British  troops  and 
Indians,  and  taking  possession  of  Fort  Pitt,  were  fully  exposed.  He 
was,  therefore,  confined,  and  subsequently,  by  order  of  Congress,  for 
greater  security,  sent  to  Philadelphia.  His  arrest  and  confinement 
probably  broke  up  the  whole  scheme  which  he  had  prepared,  and  in 
which  he  was  to  be  the  controlling  spirit!  Perhaps  the  conviction 
that  the  whole  affair  was  exploded  by  the  arrest  of  Connolly,  may 


19 

have  induced  the  removal  of  Captain  Neville  from  Fort  Pitt,  which 
took  place  in  the  ensuing  month.  Connolly,  after  the  Revolution,  re- 
sided in  Canada;  where  he  enjoyed  the  confidence  and  liberality  of 
the  English  government. 

On  the  18th  of  December,  1776,  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  of 
Virginia  passed  a  series  of  resolutions  in  relation  to  the  disputed 
boundary,  taking  some  new  and  different  grounds,  and  making  bolder 
claims  than  had  been  urged  by  Dunmore,  or  by  any  other  person  on 
the  part  of  that  State  at  any  previous  time,  so  far  as  I  have  seen. 

The  first  two  resolutions  are  merely  introductory;  the  third  author- 
izes the  Virginia  Delegates  in  Congress,  to  propose  a  final  accommo- 
dation of  the  dispute  in  manner  following: — 

"That  the  Meridian  line,  drawn  from  the  head  of  the  Potomac  to 
the  North- West  angle  of  Maryland,  be  extended  due  North,  until  it 
intersects  the  latitude  of  forty  degrees,  and  from  thence  the  Southern 
boundary  shall  be  extended  on  the  said  fortieth  degree  of  latitude,  un- 
til the  distance  of  five  degrees  of  longitude  from  the  Delaware  shall 
be  accomplished  thereon;  and  from  the  said  point,  five  degrees,  either 
in  every  point,  according  to  the  meanderings  of  the  Delaware,  or 
(which  is  perhaps  easier  and  better  for  bothj  from  proper  points  or 
angles  on  the  Delaware,  with  intermediate  straight  lines." 

I  have  now  traced  the  history  of  this  controversy  from  its  origin, 
and  have  presented  briefly,  the  various  claims  set  up,  and  the  differ- 
ent constructions  given  to  that  portion  of  the  Charter  to  Penn,  which 
fixed  his  Western  and  Southern  boundaries.  Before  proceeding  fur- 
ther, it  may  be  useful  to  review  the  different  interpretations,  examine 
their  merits,  and  thus  be  prepared  to  appreciate  properly,  the  com- 
promise entered  into  between  thejwo  States.  In  this  review,  a  very 
striking  feature  will  be  the  remarkable  difference  between  the  con- 
struction of  the  Charter  by  Lord  Dunmore  in  1774,  and  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  Virginia,  in  1776.  Another  remarkable  fact  is,  that  no  one 
of  the  proposed  lines  would  have  thrown  Pittsburgh,  the  bone  of  con- 
tention, into  Virginia;  so  that  if  Virginia  had  taken  as  much  pains  to 
ascertain  the  true  state  of  the  case,  as  did  John  Penn,  no  controversy 
need  have  occurred. 

The  first  interpretation  of  the  Charter  is  that  of  John  Penn,  in  his 
letter  to  Dunmore.  He  contended,  that  at  the  extremity  of  Maryland 
the  boundary  line  of  Pennsylvania  should  run  South  to  the  line  of 
latitude  39°,  being  identical  with  "the  beginning  of  the  40th  degree" 


20 

of  latitude,  and  that  then  the  Southern  boundary  should  extend  along 
that  line  Westward  to  the  distance  of  five  degrees  of  longitude  from 

o  o 

the  Delaware,  and  that  the  Western  boundary  should  be  run  parallel 
to  the  Delaware;  or,  in  other  words,  distant  from  it  five  degrees  in  ev- 
ery corresponding  part.  This  construction  was  more  fully  urged  by 
Messrs.  Tilghman  and  Allen,  in  their  correspondence  with  Lord 
Dunmore  at  Williamsburg. 

The  second  interpreter  of  the  Charter  was  Lord  Dunmore.  He 
scouts  at  the  idea  of  a  Western  boundary  with  curves  corresponding 
to  the  courses  of  the  Delaware,  and  contends  that  it  should  be  a  Me- 
ridian line,  beginning  at  the  distance  of  five  degrees  of  longitude 
from  the  Delaware  river,  on  the  Northern  boundary  of  Pennsylvania. 

He  gave  the  following  somewhat  plausible  reason  for  starting  the 
Meridian  line  from  the  Northern  instead  of  the  Southern  boundary: — 
"Because  the  Grant  directs  that  the  survey  shall  begin  at  a  point  on 
the  South  part  of  the  boundary  and  proceed  Northward,"  &c.;  "and 
it  being  usual  always,  in  like  cases,  to  proceed,  and  extend  the  five 
degrees  of  longitude,  and  not  return  to  the  South  point  to  draw  it 
from  thence."  No  doubt  his  Lordship  thought  that  his  government 
would  be  considerably  extended,  if  his  construction  of  the  Charter 
were  adopted;  for  he  says,  if  my  construction  be  the  true  one,  then 
Fort  Pitt,  by  the  river  Delaware  running  very  much  Eastwardly,  to- 
wards your  Northern  bounds,  will  probably  be,  at  least,  fifty  miles 
without  your  limits. 

He  was,  however,  not  well  informed  as  to  the  geography  of  the 
Delaware  river;  there  being,  in  fact,  only  five  or  six  miles  difference 
between  its  longitude  at  the  Northern  and  Southern  limits  of  this 
State.  Lord  Dunmore  does  not  state  very  explicitly  his  construction, 
as  to  the  Southern  boundary  of  Pennsylvania,  though  he  does  speak 
of  "the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree  of  latitude"  as  such. 

The  only  remaining  formal  or  official  construction,  is  that  of  the 
Legislature  of  Virginia,  on  the  18th  of  December,  1776. 

It  makes  the  very  first  suggestion,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  that  the 
boundary  line  should  run  North  from  the  North- Western  angle  of 
Maryland,  to  the  line  of  latitude  40°  complete;  then  run  West  along 
that  line  to  the  distance  of  five  degrees  of  longitude  from  the  Dela- 
ware in  that  latitude,  and  then  for  the  Western  boundary;  that  John 
Penn's  scheme  should  be  adopted,  or  as  more  convenient,  a  number 
of  straight  lines  should  be  run  from  prominent  points  of  the  Dela- 
ware, and  the  Western  boundary  be  run  parallel  to  those  lino?, 


21 


From  this  statement  of  the  different  interpretations,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  utterly  discarded  and  repudiated  the 
construction  taken  by  Lord  Dunmore,  as  to  the  mode  of  running  the 
Western  boundary,  and  approved  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Penn,  sug- 
gesting, however,  a  more  easy  plan.  The  Western  boundary,  it 
would  seem  then,  was  no  longer  a  subject  of  difficulty  in  December, 
1776,  Virginia  having  adopted  the  views  and  opinions  expressed  on 
that  subject,  by  John  Penn,  three  years  before;  but  at  the  same  time, 
she  suggested  an  entirely  new  Southern  boundary,  and  one  which 
would  have  taken  a  considerable  extent  of  valuable  territory  from 
Pennsylvania. 

The  following  Diagram  will  make  the  different  propositions  more 
intelligible  and  satisfactory: 


•JTort  Pitt. 


The  plain  line,  thus 


-,  represents  the  boundary  of  Pennsyl- 


vania as  now  established.  The  small  triangle  at  the  North- West 
corner  of  the  State,  was  ceded  to  the  United  States  by  New  York,  in 
1781,  and  was  purchased  from  the  General  Government  in  1792. 

The  curved  and  dotted  line  represents  the  boundary  claimed  by 
John  Penn.  The  line  drawn  thus is  the  boundary  pro- 
posed by  Lord  Dunmore.  The  Virginia  Legislature  proposed  the 


22 

line  marked  thus,  — o— o — ,  extending  from  the  North-West  angle 
of  Maryland  to  Pernn's  curved  line,  and  along  that  to  the  Lake. 

The  break  like  this across  the  South  boundary  of  Penn- 
sylvania, is  the  West  end  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line. 

The  letters  W  and  F,  indicate  the  positions  of  Washington  and 
Franklin. 

The  Legislature  of  Virginia,  by  its  resolutions  of  December  18th, 
seems  indeed  to  have  yielded  the  only  point  about  which  there  was 
really  any  difficulty  or  doubt,  and  to  have  taken  issue  upon  one  of 
very  easy  solution.  The  expressions  in  the  charter  as  to  the  Western 
boundary,  were,  "  Said  lands  to  extend  Westward  five  degrees  of 
longitude  from  said  Eastern  bounds."  Now  as  the  Eastern  boundary 
was  a  river,  some  doubt  might  well  arise  on  the  question,  whether  it 
was  intended  that  a  boundary  should  be  run,  corresponding  in  all 
points  with  the  sinuosities  of  that  river.  I  am  not  mathematician 
enough  to  pronounce  the  task  impracticable;  but  I  can  readily  per- 
ceive that  it  would  be  exceedingly  difficult  and  tedious ;  and  Lord 
Dunmore  might  well  express  strong  doubt  that  such  was  the  intention 
of  the  grantor. 

But  as  to  the  Southern  boundary,  there  seems  to  be  no  loop  to  hang 
a  doubt  upon.  "The  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree  of  latitude," 
are  the  words.  A  degree  is  not  a  certain  indivisible  point,  but  some 
certain  divisible  space,  having  not  only  a  "  beginning,"  of  which  the 
charter  speaks,  but  a  termination,  and  that  beginning  and  termination 
must  be  different.  A  degree  of  latitude  is  defined  to  be  the  space  or 
distance  on  a  meridian,  through  which  an  observer  must  pass,  to  vary 
his  latitude  by  one  degree,  or  to  increase  or  decrease  the  distance  of  a 
star  from  the  zenith  by  one  degree. 

An  observer  under  the  equator  would  be  at  the  "beginning"  of  the 
first  degree:  let  him  travel  North  sixty  minutes  of  a  degree,  or  geo- 
graphical miles,  he  will  then  be  at  the  line  marked  one  on  the  maps, 
that  is,  at  the  end  of  the  first  degree  and  "be ginning"  of  the  second. 
So  when  he  arrives  at  the  line  marked  39,  he  will  be  at  the  end  of 
latitude  thirty-nine  degrees  and  "beginning"  of  forty. 

That  this  was  the  understanding  of  that  matter  about  that  time,  was 
manifest  in  the  case  of  the  Northern  boundary  which,  in  the  same 
charter,  was  fixed  at  "the  beginning  of  the  43d  degree  of  latitude;" 
and  no  pretence  was  ever  made  of  a  right  to  go  beyond  the  line 
marked  42.  Thus  if  Virginia  had  succeeded  in  pushing  her  boundary 


23 

up  to  40,  Pennsylvania  would  have  been  only  two  degrees  wide;  al- 
though her  charter  says  from  the  beginning  of  the  40th  to  the  begin* 
ning  of  ths  43d  degree.  Moreover,  if  the  line  of  40  were  the  begin- 
ning of  the  40th  degree,  Pennsylvania,  throughout  the  whole  length 
of  Maryland,  has  acquired,  and  now  holds  territory  South  of  her 
chartered  limits,  and  the  manner  of  fixing  the  latitude  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line,  would  seem  to  have  been  a  studied  transgression  of  the 
Southern  boundary  prescribed  in  tile  Charter. 

The  State  House  in  Philadelphia  is  in  latitude  39°  56V  53VV,  being 
more  than  three  geographical  miles  South  of  what  the  Virginia  Legis- 
lature called  the  beginning  of  the  40th  degree,"  and  yet  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line  was  fixed  at  fifteen  statute  miles,  due  South  of  the  most 
Southern  point  of  Philadelphia. 

Both  States,  however,  were  disposed  to  bring  the  controversy  to  a 
close,  and  early  in  1779,  movements  were  made  for  this  purpose. 

Finally,  George  Bryan,  John  Ewing  and  David  Rittenhouse,  on 
the  part  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Dr.  James  Madison,  late  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church,  and  Robert  Andrews,  on  the  part  of 
Virginia,  were  appointed  Commissioners  to  agree  upon  a  boundary. 
These  gentlemen  met  at  Baltimore  on  the  31st  of  August,  1779,  and 
entered  into  the  following  agreement: 

"We  (naming  the  Commissioners)  do  hereby  mutually,  in  behalf 
of  our  respective  States,  ratify  and  confirm  the  following  agreement, 
viz:  To  extend  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  due  West  five  degrees  of 
longitude,  to  be  computed  from  the  river  Delaware,  for  the  Southern 
boundary  of  Pennsylvania,  and  that  a  Meridian,  drawn  from  the 
Western  extremity  thereof,  to  the  Northern  limit  of  said  State,  be  the 
Western  boundary  of  said  State  forever." 

A  narrative  of  what  passed  at  the  meeting  of  these  Commissioners 
would,  no  doubt,  be  interesting;  btft  I  presume  will  never  be  had'. 
A  respected  friend,  in  whose  veracity  I  had  entire  confidence,  has  of- 
ten told  me  that  the  Virginia  Delegates  were  willing  to  have  Mason 
and  Dixon's  line  extended  to  the  Ohio  river,  and  that  the  objections 
of  George  Bryan  were  interposed,  and  prevented  it.  I  either  never 
have  heard,  or  have  forgotten  the  authority  of  my  informant,  who  is 
now  dead,  for  this  statement. 

This  agreement  was  ratified  and  confirmed  by  the  Legislature  of 
Virginia,  on  the  23d  of  June,  1780,  upon  certain  conditions,  which 
will  hereafter  be  stated,  and  subsequently  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
Pennsylvania,  on  the  23d  of  September,  1780, 


24 

On  the  1st  of  April,  1784,  was  passed  an  act  confirming  the 
agreement  entered  into  between  this  State  and  Virginia.  The  act 
begins  by  reciting  that,  whereas,  Commissioners  (naming  them)  had 
been  appointed  by  the  two  States  to  meet  and  agree  upon  a  boundary 
line;  that  they  had  met  and  agreed;  which  agreement  was,  on  the 
23d  day  of  September,  1780,  unanimously  confirmed  by  this  Com- 
monwealth, as  follows :  A  resolution  is  then  recited,  stating,  that 
although  the  conditions  annexed  to  the  ratification  by  Virginia,  may 
tend  to  countenance  some  unwarrantable  claims  which  may  he  made 
under  the  State  of  Virginia,  in  consequence  of  pretended  purchases 
or  settlements  during  the  controversy,  yet  this  State  determining  to 
give  to  the  world  the  most  unequivocal  proof  of  their  earnest  desire 
to  promote  peace  and  harmony  with  a  sister  State,  during  the  present 
contest  with  the  common  enemy,  does  agree  to  the  conditions  pro- 
posed by  the  State  of  Virginia,  as  follows:  "That  the  private  pro- 
perty and  rights  of  all  persons  acquired  under,  founded  on,  or  recog- 
nized by,  the  laws  of  either  country,  be  saved  and  confirmed  to 
them,  although  they  should  be  found  within  the  other;  and  that  in 
the  decision  of  disputes  thereon,  preference  shall  be  given  to  the 
elder  or  prior  right,  whichever  of  the  States  the  same  shall  be  acquired 
tinder,  such  persons  paying,  within  whose  boundary  their  lands  shall  be 
included,  the  same  consideration  money  which  would  have  been  due 
from  them  to  the  State  under  which  they  claimed  the  right;  and 
where  any  such  money  hath,  since  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
been  received  by  either  State  for  lands  which,  under  the  before- 
named  agreement,  falls  within  the  other,  the  same  shall  be  refunded 
and  repaid;  and  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  disputed  territory  now 
ceded  to  Pennsylvania,  shall  not,  before  the  1st  of  December,  in  the 
year  1784,  be  subject  to  the  payment  of  any  tax;  nor  at  any  time 
hereafter,  to  the  payment  of  any  arrears  of  taxes  or  impositions  here- 
tofore laid  by  either  State;  and  we  do  hereby  accept  and  fully  ratify 
the  said  recited  conditions  and  the  boundary  line  formed. 

The  agreement  of  August,  1779,  being  thus  ratified  by  both  States, 
settled  the  disputed  question,  as  to  the  point  from  which  the  five 
degrees  of  longitude  were  to  be  measured,  in  the  manner  most  favor- 
able to  Pennsylvania.  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  was  to  be  extended 
to  the  distance  of  five  degrees  of  longitude  from  the  Delaware  river, 
in  that  latitude;  and  as  that  river  reaches  farther  West  in  that  latitude 
than  at  any  other  point  within  the  Northern  and  Southern  limits  of  the 


25 

State,  the  boundary  would,  of  course,  extend  farther  West,  than  if 
measured  from  any  other  point. 

The  condition  insisted  upon  by  Virginia,  in  her  ratification  of  an 
aoreement  entered  into  by  her  own  enlightened  Commissioners,  seems 
to  have  been  unreasonable,  or  at  all  events,  it  Avas  not  reciprocal;  be- 
cause there  were  no  claims  under  Pennsylvania,  outside  of  the  boun- 
dary agreed  upon,  and  many  persons  who  had  honestly  purchased  or 
settled  under  this  State,  in  Westmoreland,  Fayette  and  Washington 
counties,  were  deprived  of  their  possessions  by  claimants  under  Vir- 
ginia. Much  valuable  land  within  our  present  county  of  Allegheny, 
is  held  by  Virginia  titles. 

This  question  being  settled,  it  was  now  only  necessary  to  mark 
upon  the  ground  the  boundaries  agreed  upon. 

On  the  21st  of  February,  1781,  the  President  and  Council  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  pursuance  of  authority  vested  in  them  by  General 
Assembly,  appointed  John  Lukens  and  Archibald  McClean,  of  York 
county,  to  extend  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  to  the  extent  of  five  de- 
grees of  longitude,  from  the  river  Delaware.  Under  this  appoint- 
ment, nothing  appears  to  have  been  done,  and  on  the  6th  of  April, 
1782,  Archibald  McClean  was  appointed  again.  On  the  19th  of 
February,  1783,  a  letter  from  McClean,  inclosing  a  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  himself  and  Virginia  Commissioners,  was  read  in  the 
Executive  Council.  They  had  extended  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  and 
run  a  Meridian  line  from  its  termination  to  the  Ohio  river.  This  line 
was,  however,  only  looked  upon  as  a  temporary  one,  and  notwith- 
standing its  completion,  controversies  and  mutual  recrimination  con- 
tinued. Virginians  within  the  limits  of  this  State,  as  settled  by  the 
temporary  line,  made  complaints  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  that  the 
conditions  upon  which  that  State  had  acceded  to  the  line,  had  been 
departed  from.  These  complaints  were  transmitted  to  the  Supreme 
Executive  Council  of  Pennsylvania.  The  Council  submitted  them 
to  the  Assembly;  a  Committee  of  which  body,  after  full  investigation, 
pronounced  them  groundless,  and  recommended  that  measures  be  ta- 
ken to  establish  the  boundary  line  permanently. 

For  this  desirable  purpose,  each  State  selected  the  best  and  most 
suitable  men  within  its  reach;  so  that  their  work,  when  completed, 
would  merit  and  secure  entire  confidence  in  its  accuracy. 

The  Commissioners  on  the  part  of  Pennsylvania  were,  David  Rit- 
tenhouse,  John  Lukens,  John   Ewmg   and  Captain    Hutcliins;    and 
i 


26 

those  on  the  part  of  Virginia  were,  Andrew  Ellicot,  (who  then  resi- 
ded in  Maryland,)  Bishop  Madison,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Robert  Andrews, 
and  T.  Page.  These  gentlemen  performed  the  duty  assigned  them, 
in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1784. 

The  Southern  boundary  of  the  State  being  thus  extended  to  its 
Western  extremity,  it  only  remained  to  run  a  Meridian  line  from  that 
point  to  the  Ohio  river,  to  close  the  controversy  with  Virginia.  This 
task  was  committed  to  Messrs.  Rittenhouse  and  Porter,  from  Penn- 
sylvania, and  Andrew  Ellicot  and  Joseph  Neville,  from  Virginia; 
who  entered  upon  their  work  in  May,  1784,  and  on  the  23d  of  Aug- 
ust, united  in  the  following  report: — 

"We,  the  subscribers,  Commissioners,  appointed  by  the  States  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  to  ascertain  the  boundary  between  said 
States,  do  certify,  that  we  have  carried  on  a  Meridian  line  from  the 
South-West  corner  of  Pennsylvania,  Northward  to  the  river  Ohio; 
and  marked  it  by  cutting  a  wide  vista  over  all  the  principal  hills,  in- 
tersected by  the  said  line,  and  by  falling  or  deadening  a  line  of  trees, 
generally,  through  all  the  lower  grounds.  And  we  have  likewise 
placed  stones,  marked  on  the  East  side  P.,  and  on  the  West  side  V., 
on  the  most  of  the  principal  hills,  and  where  the  line  strikes  the 
Ohio;  which  stones  are  accurately  placed  in  the  true  Meridian,  bound- 
ing the  States  as  aforesaid." 

Persons  traveling  on  the  Pittsburgh  and  Steubenville  turnpike  road, 
may  see  one  of  the  stones  a  short  distance  West  of  Paris,  and  about 
thirty  miles  West  of  Pittsburgh. 

Virginia  having  on  the  1st  of  March,  1784,  ceded  to  the  United 
States  all  her  right  to  the  territory  North  of  the  Ohio  river,  had  no 
special  interest  in  extending  the  boundary  of  Pennsylvania  farther 
North.  The  boundary  was  extended  to  Lake  Erie  the  ensuing  year, 
by  Messrs.  Porter  and  McClain. 

Having  thus  traced  this  controversy  from  its  origin,  and  having,  I 
fear,  exhausted  the  patience  of  my  audience,  I  shall  now  give  a 
brief  notice  of  the  operation  which  each  of  the  schemes  for  fixing  the 
boundary,  would  have  had  upon  the  States. 

Had  the  proposition  of  John  Penn  been  acted  upon,  Pennsylvania 
would  have  extended  over  the  whole  of  Preston,  Monongalia  and 
Marion,  a  large  part  of  Harrison,  and  portions  of  Lewis,  Randolph 
and  Marshall  counties,  \  a.;  and  on  the  other  hand,  she  would  have 
lost  the  whole  of  the  territorv  ol  Beaver  and  Mercer  Bounties,  nine- 


27 

teen-twentieths  of  Washington,  portions  of  Green,  Fayette,  West- 
moreland, Butler,  Venango,  Crawford,  Erie,  and  two-fifths  of  Alle- 
gheny. The  townships  of  Jefferson,  Upper  St.  Clair,  Fayette,  Moon 
and  Finley,  would  have  passed  to  Virginia,  with  portions  of  Eliza- 
beth, Mifflin,  Lower  St.  Clair  and  Robinson.  A  large  portion  of  Ohio 
township  and  a  portion  of  Ross,  together  with  all  those  entire  coun- 
ties and  parts  of  counties  North  of  the  Ohio  river,  though  lost  to 
Pennsylvania,  would  not  have  been  gained  by  Virginia,  but  would 
have  passed  to  the  United  States,  by  the  cession  of  1st  March,  1784, 
and  would,  of  course,  now  belong  to  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  plan  of 
the  Virginia  Legislature  would  have  taken  from  Pennsylvania  all  that 
she  would  have  lost  under  Penn's  project,  with  the  addition  of  the 
residue  of  Greene  county,  and  about  two-thirds  more  of  Fayette. 

Lord  Dunmore's  project  is  not  very  plain,  as  to  the  Southern  limit 
of  this  State.  He  speaks  of  the  beginning  of  the  40th  degree  of 
latitude,  but  whether  he  meant  the  39°  or  40°,  is  not  obvious;  for 
he  does  not  say  whether  the  line  should  run  North  or  South  from  the 
North- West  angle  of  Maryland.  In  the  one  case,  his  Southern  boun- 
dary of  Pennsylvania  would  have  been  the  same  as  that  of  John 
Penn;  in  the  other  case,  it  would  have  been  identical  with  that  of  the 
Virginia  Legislature,  to  Penn's  curved  line.  But  as  Gov.  Penn,  in 
his  letter  of  the  31st  of  March,  1774,  stated  very  distinctly  to  his 
Lordship,  the  claim  of  the  Proprietaries  of  Pennsylvania,  to  run  South 
along  the  Western  line  of  Maryland  to  the  beginning  of  the  40th  de- 
gree, and  as  his  Lordship  did  never,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  controvert 
that  claim,  we  may  infer  that  he  understood  the  words,  "beginning 
of  the  40th  degree,"  to  mean  the  line  of  39  degrees. 

His  W'estern  boundary  would  have  cut  oft'  from  Pennsylvania  a 
strip  of  land  four  or  five  miles  wide,  and  extending  from  the  Southern 
boundary  to  the  Lake. 

The  compromise  of  August,  1779,  seems  to  have  been  a  very  fair 
and  reasonable  one.  Pennsylvania  abandoned  her  claim  to  the  paral- 
lelogram between  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  extended,  on  the  North, 
and  "the  beginning"  of  latitude  40  on  the  South,  and  from  the  West 
line  of  Maryland  Westward,  to  the  extent  of  five  degrees  from  the 
Delaware,  being  about  54  miles  long  and  50  miles  wide.  On  the 
other  hand,  she  gained,  to  the  West  of  Penn's  curved  lino,  about  au 
rqual  extent  of  better  land. 

Both  States  secured   more  compact   territories   than  either  of  the 


28 

plans  proposed  by  Lord  Dunmore,  John  Penn,  or  the  Virginia  Legis- 
lature, would  have  given  them;  and  Pennsylvania  especially,  has  ob- 
tained the  exclusive  dominion  of  the  Ohio  river  for  more  than  forty 
miles;  instead  of  having  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Ohio  cornering 
within  six  miles  of  our  city.  This  State  has  also,  by  the  Compro- 
mise, gained  the  territory  along  the  Big  Beaver  river,  through  which 
the  Canals  to  Erie  and  Cleveland  extend. 

A  few  brief  remarks  upon  the  statements  of  Mr.  Barton,  in  his  life 
of  Rittenhouse,  and  of  Judge  Brackenridge.  in  his  short  chapter,  will 
conclude  this  Lecture,  which  has  already  been  extended  beyond  my 
expectations. 

Mr.  Barton,  in  a  note  to  his  work,  says — "The  difference  between 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  and  'the  beginning  of  the  fortieth  degree  of 
latitude,'  was  gained  by  Mr.  Penn,  as  far  as  Maryland  extended,  in 
consequence  of  a  compromise  with  Lord  Baltimore,  whereby  the 
latter  gained  some  advantage."  "Some  advantage,"  is  certainly  a 
very  loose  expression  for  the  biographer  of  an  eminent  mathematician; 
but  whejfi?  that  author  asserted  that  Penn,  with  the  younger  grant, 
had  gained  something:  from  an  older  grantee,  it  became  necessary  to 
assume  that  the  latter  had  gained  elsewhere,  in  return,  '•'•some  advan- 
tage;" but  it  was  impossible  to  lay  a  tin  go  r  upon  that  advantage. 
A  loose  expression  was,  therefore,  the  only  resource  left.  The  truth 
is,  that  Penn's  Charter  would  have  entitled  him  to  go  South  to  lati- 
tude 39°  being  the  beginning  of  latitude  40C;  but  the  older  grant  to 
Lord  Baltimore  prevailed,  and  Penn  lost  the  strip  of  land  from  lati- 
tude 393  to  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  throughout  the  whole  length  of 
Maryland.  Thus  Pennsylvania,  instead  of  being  three  degrees  wide, 
as  the  Charter  and  the  Minutes  of  Council  at  the  time  show  it  was 
intended  to  be,  was  only  a  little  more  than  two  degrees  in  width. 

Again,  in  the  same  note,  Mr.  Barton  say?, — "The  boundary  line 
between  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  was  continued  due  West  from 
the  North-West  angle  of  Maryland;  instead  of  then  coining  back  to 
the  40:  of  North  latitude;  by  virtue  of  an  agreement  by  which  the 
former  relinquished  her  right  to  run  her  Western  boundary  parallel 
to  the  meanderings  of  the  Delaware."  I  think  I  have  shown  satis- 
factorily, that  Penn's  Southern  boundary,  according  to  his  Charter, 
was  the  line  of  latitude  39:;  so  that  it  was  Pennsylvania,  and  not 
Virginia,  who  yielded  in  the  location  of  the  Southern  boundary.  As 
to  the  Western  boundarv.  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  in  December, 


29 

1776,  had  acceded  to  the  curved  boundary  proposed  by  Penn.  The 
true  terms  and  spirit  of  the  compromise  of  1779  were  as  follow:  — 
Pennsylvania  relinquished  her  claim  to  the  territory  South  of  Mason 
and  Dixon's  line,  and  Virginia  agreed  that  the  five  degrees  of  longi- 
tude should  be  measured  from  the  most  Western  point  on  the  Dela- 
ware; thus  compensating  Pennsylvania  for  what  she  lost  South  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  extended. 

Judge  Brackenridge  differs  entirely  from  Mr.  Barton,  in  his  ac- 
count of  the  matter.  He  says, — "He  (Penn)  had  a  right  to  run 
South,  at  the  extremity  of  Maryland,  a  degree."  "Then  a  line  due 
West  to  the  extremity  of  the  fifth  degree  of  longitude  from  the  Dela- 
ware." This  is  correctly  stated,  except  as  to  the  distance  Penn  had 
a  right  to  run  South,  which  was  really  about  fifty  statute  miles,  not 
"a  degree."  Again  the  Judge  says, — "There  was  in  dispute  with 
Virginia,  a  degree  of  latitude  for  the  distance  of  twenty-three  miles 
due  West,  after  passing  the  Charter  boundary  of  Maryland^  The 
disputed  territory  South  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  extended  due 
West  not  twenty-three,  but  about  fifty-four  miles?*"  The  Judge's 
mistake  probably  occured  in  this  way.  From  the  end  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line  to  the  South-West  corner  of  Pennsylvania,  is  about 
twenty-three  miles.  This  was  run  by  Rittenhouse  and  his  col- 
leagues; and  the  Judge  probably  had  t personal  knowledge  of  their 
work,  and  perhaps  supposed  that  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  termi- 
nated at  the  North-West  corner  of  Maryland. 

Again  the  Judge  says, — "Pennsylvania  claimed  a  line  North  par- 
allel with  the  Delaware,  but  not  according  to  the  curves.  Virginia 
claimed  according  to  the  curves;  the  sinuosities  of  which  river  would 
throw  considerable  bays  into  Virginia./' 

All  who  have  heard  this  Lecture,  may  recollect  that  John  Penn, 
as  well  as  Messrs.  Tilghman  and  Allen,  claimed  according  to  the 
curves  of  the  Delaware;  that  Lord  Dunmore  insisted  upon  a  meri- 
dian line;  and  that  it  was  not  until  the  close  of  1776,  that  Virginia 
acceded  to  the  proposition  of  a  crooked  Western  boundary. 

I  have  thus  given  a  history  of  the  rise,  progress  and  final  settle- 
ment of  that  controversy,  which  was  once  the  subject  of  deep  and 
exciting  interest,  in  this  section  of  country.  In  giving  this  narra- 
tive, I  have  labored  to  make  it  as  brief  as  the  dispute,  extending 
through  many  years,  would  admit,  and  as  plain  and  intelligible  as 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


1 

5 

» 
S 
9 
I 
) 
If 


42m-8,'49(B5573)444 


ITNfVKRSITY  ot  CALLFORNM 

AT 
LOS  ANGELES 


Lecture  upon 
the  contro- 


versy  between  Penn- 
sylvania  and  Virginia. 


L  005  414  410 


F157 
W52C8 


